Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-06-06

south of the Harvey ssurvey. The north
east and northwest corners
oftthe Haney survey are well identified,
while the southeast corner cannot be.
The southwest corner is at point from
which an elm bears S. 76' E. IS varas and
q cottonwood tree S. 80 E. 90 varas.
The elm tree can't be found, but the cot
tonwood can be easily. Running the
courses and distances according to the
corners which can be identified the cot
tonwood tree will be found bearing S. 80
W. SO varas, instead of S. so E. SO
varas. The court below found that the
call for the cottonwood tree of
S. so Z. sc varas was a mistake and
this we believe to be correct, for this call
is of no higher dignity than the others
which are admitted to be established.
The calls should be harmonized, and If
effect cannot be given to one without dis
regarding the others then effect should be
gwen those of greater certainty, though
another call of equal dignity be disre-
garded. Making the cottonwood tree to
bear S. so e. 90 vares the other corners
cannot be identified as they can be by
making it 8. so W. 90 vaIas. This is the
main question in the case and the Judg-
ment Till be affirmed.
Eff. Davidson VS.. L. B. Scott ct al,
from Falls; opinion by Stayton, a. j.
The same questions are involved in this
case as the one of Davidson vs.. Killeen,
lust decided (suprs), and for the reasons
given there the appellant is not entitled to
have the southern boundary where he
claims it to be. Nor are the appellees
estopped from having the southern line
where they claim it, for it was the duty Of
the subsequent locstors to ascertain from
all the calls the true locality of the Haney
survey. And again the evidence does not
show that Scott made such declarations
as estop him from claiming the true boun-
Diary. The judgment is affirmed.
J. Ullmen & Co. VS.. Charles Verue,
administrator, from Wise; opin-
ion by Gaines, a. J. This
was suit by appellee, admin
istrator de bonis non, to recover the pro-
ceeds of note which had been fraudu-
lently disposed by John BarIick, the for
mer administrator, in satisfaction Of the
debt due by him and his brother. Appel
lants were holders of the note, and Ter
rell and sons, the maker, executed new
notes PAYABLE to the former, which were
subsequently paid. 1t is suggested that
Barrick's bondsmen and Terrell and sons
were responsible; the former may be so,
but while the latter are, if recovery
was had from them, they could re-
cover over agian from appellant
because they had received the money IN
lawfully and had to account to the estate
for it, and were thus ultimately liable for
the amount. The appellants were sued
for tort and could be sued separately.
1t makes no difference that Bsrrick was
the heir of the intestate whose estate was
administered, because it might have en-
barrassed the administration, and it could
not be permitted to have q pro rata re-
covery from appellants, after deducting
B.rrick's and his brothers. share.
1t Is objected that the oath of
appellee omitted the words "died without
leaving any lawful will" This is not a
valid objection as he was an administra-
tor de bonis non and the former admin
istrator may be presumed to set that
question st rest. The objection that the
bond was not sufficient is overruled by the
fact that the court had fixed the penalty.
The Judgment is affirmed.
Henry Valet VS.. A. L. Haskinsr ct al,